I understand, as I stated on Saturday, that talk radio has been hammering this point for days now. Yesterday while reading about Basilides I internally debated whether to bring this topic up on the blog today. After a fair amount of reflection here I am. Last week four students at Live Oak High School were sent home from school because of wearing Old Navy T-Shirts that proudly display the American Flag. One may wonder why this would be. The boys wore the American flag T-shirts on May 5th. Cinco de Mayo is a historical day in Mexican lore as it marks a victory the Mexican Army had over the French at the Battle of Puebla. Now, that victory is symbolic for Mexicans because it showed their unity and patriotism.
Nothing ought to be taken away from the heroics of the day for Mexicans as the battle against the French had significance for their country. What is more alarming is that American students inside the United States are requested not to wear a T-shirt, from Old Navy, that displays the American flag on that day because it may offend. Do we no longer live in the United States? Have we sold back a portion of our country to Mexico? Where is Rev. Sharpton or Jackson or the ACLU in defense of these students? Last I checked it is not a crime to wear a t-shirt to school with the American flag on it.
That being said, did the students wear the T-shirts to create a hostile environment? One student, Annicia Nunez, at Live Oak High School said, "I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day. We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July" ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36981179?GT1=43001). I am all for diversity and understanding of other cultures but we live in America; the melting pot of the world. To say that "we" wouldn't wear a T-shirt with the Mexican flag on it on the Fourth of July out of respect is ridiculous. We all have the same freedoms in America and if anyone wants to wear a T-shirt with the Mexican flag on it on the Fourth of July so be it. Morgan Hill Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Wes Smith issued a statement: "The incident on May 5 at Live Oak High School is extremely unfortunate. While campus safety is our primary concern and administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety, students should not, and will not, be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing. This matter is under investigation and appropriate action will be taken" (http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/265447-american-flag-t-shirt-controversy-grabs-nations-attention).
Campus safety, really, this statement is a throw away. The school principal and staff should have never confronted these students nor should they have bowed to pressures of the day. Instead a great teaching moment was lost and our school system failed us again. Why is it when we speak of tolerance and understanding that it is only a one-way street? We all come from different backgrounds and upbringings. Heritage is important, yet you don't see the school system clamping down of those wearing an American flag on June 6th when it is Sveriges Nationaldag. Where is the outrage then? Again I ask, where is Rev. Sharpton or Jackson or the ACLU? Is it not a violation of these students' civil liberties?
I don't think that anyone disagrees with you Viper. It is quite obvious, however, that the media puts this story out to get ratings and to make people like yourself angry at things like this.
ReplyDeleteTo say that the students safety is a throwaway statment is ridiculous. That is your opinion. There are a great amount of Mexican students at the school. The current climate against people of hispanic origin is at a fever pitch, illegal or legal citizens. If you want someone to blame for things like this, why don't you blame the politicians who promote such anti-immigrant fervor in the US?
In this case, at least from the different reports I read, the students bearing the American flag T-shirts were not taunting anyone nor were they being taunted themselves. So, I do not buy the school safety aspect. I see that as a smoke screen for the administrator that lacked the courage to discuss the topic of race, race relations and differences in heritage.
ReplyDeleteI did hear a caller over the weekend ask the talk show host if the school took down the American flag for the day. The point is valid since they reprimanded and made a deal of the students wearing the American flag T-shirts. Our society has become too thin-skinned when it comes time to talk about race, the melting pot, assimilation and illegal immigration.
It is time for us to throw away political correctness and use language we all understand. I do not mean that we become vulgar and disrespectful; rather let's just talk about the issues and find resolution. We live in the greatest society and the land with hope, opportunity and liberty. Talk to your neighbor, co-worker, stranger in line at the gas station or anyone for that matter.
We have a President that would rather campaign, fan the flames of class warfare and polarize our country then lead us away from the quagmire he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for. The policians are using Hispanics and the Hispanic community, for the most part, is not realizing it.
We need stronger immigration laws, we need to enforce the ones we have as well and our politicians need to respect the Constitution and the law of the land; instead they see millions of potential voters and job security. Hispanics, legal or illegal, are pawns. The lowest rank on the chess board. Herded like cattle and round up by greedy politicians.
Again, where is the ACLU in defense of these students?
Wow...you see all of that in this issue? I just see a school principal preventing any unecessary violence. Did it start out as peaceful? Sure, but the way things are going perhaps it wouldn't be that way if administrators didn't step in.
ReplyDeleteIs it the administrators job to discuss race? No. It is his job to educate your kids and to prevent school violence. If you say what he did was extreme, that is your opinion. He would probably say that he was just trying to prevent violence.
But to your point of being thin-skinned...did you personally deem the conversation valid to start talking about race and heritige? You as a white, male, middle-class US citizen, are you the one who says it is OK?
Its all OK now folks. Viper has cleared the air of racism and stereotypes and we can all be free to discuss these issues.
Viper, it is simply not up to you.
I realize that you have an opinion. That's fine. But the real issue is that so many of the hispanic residents in this country feel threatened by such draconian laws. Is immigration a problem. Yes. But most people in the country breaking this law are the ones who come here to work and earn money for their families and are caught up in the immigration red tape. Thank 9-11 for that one.
Class warfare? You are being ridiculously ignorant by saying that when there are politicians out there fanning the flames of anti-immigrant propaganda like stating that English should be the "national language" or requiring all people to carry their citizenship papers.
And one more thing...we are all cattle to greedy politicians. Hispanics alike.
Anon...
ReplyDelete"I just see a school principal preventing any unecessary violence."
Seriously, the principal was not preventing violence; rather the principle was taking the easy way out. Let's reverse the issue here. Let's assume a Latino group of students wore Old Navy Mexican flag shirts on the 4th of July and school was in session. What would have happened if that same principle told those students to remove their shirts or leave school?
I have been having several conversations with a group on Facebook made up of entirely black and bi-racial people. We have been discussing how to move beyond the tired rhetoric and how people struggle to discuss race, heritage, and stereotypes. And yes, not because I am a white, male, middle-class US citizen that is stating it is time; rather because it is time to discuss these topics. We cannot be thin-skinned or hide behind political correctness.
The school administrator is to discuss race in regards to educating our youth in the similarities, differences and heritages of all races that fall under their roof. The school administrator is not there to prevent violence in the manner of violence.
Class warfare is exactly what is going on. The bashing of Wall Street, the bashing of the banking industry, and the bashing of the rich. It is due to politicians that believe everyone has the right to own a home - creation of junk mortgage derivitve market. Politicians are now using the group that creates an arena for anyone, regardless of start in life, an opportunity to improve their lot to bash them for the failure in the economy when their own regulators were busy surfing for porn.
And what is wrong with English becoming a national language? We are to be a melting pot, we are to be one nation of Americans..so why not a national language?
Different anon.
ReplyDeleteHow about spanish for a national language, then? Or Chinese? It's ok for the government to tell us what language to speak all the time but not to wear a seatbelt? Or can each state pick there or language? Bring back those states' rights.
By declaring a national language you undermine the melting pot, in my opinion.
Do you run a school? Are you an educator? Do you deal with the threat of school violence everyday? With guns being brought to classrooms? Do you have any idea of what it takes to balance and meld the backgrounds and needs of that school? Of that community? Were you at the school that day? Were you fielding complaints? Do you know the history of race issues at the school if any? Do you know what the tensions were that day? Do you know what was said or what was going on? It's not about being thinned skinned, it's about you not knowing the situation. I don't see how you have a foundation to pass judgement. Should race be talked about, sure, but not in the context were tensions are running high. The first, and most important, thing to do is to ensure the safety of the students.
And a school administrator is not there to prevent violence? Really? Who is then? Are the students suppose to take care of it? Or the cook?
Oh, and you fuel that class warfare by bashing the poor and telling gays to stop fight for their rights and bashing those that believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming, or those you were taken advantage of and trusted mortgage "experts" and bashing those who aren't just able to suck it up and deal with their crappy lot in life they have through no fault of there own.
It must be nice to always be in the right.
And the more I think about it, what's right about a national language?
Chris, I hate to tell you this, but to quote Warren Buffet "Class warfare does exist, and my side is winning".
ReplyDeleteHow is your standard of living doing Chris? Why do the top 1% of americans make 60% of all income. Why do wages for the top 5% increase at a 4 fold rate to that of the bottom 95%? Is that fair? I'm not saying it's not, but it sure begs the question doesn't it.
I'm curious how you feel such pain for the bankers on wall street but not the auto workers that their antics put out of work. Personally, I'd like to burn Goldman and Morgan Stanley to the ground. I know all to well what their wheeling and dealing has gotten us - or rather, gotten them at our expense.
What an absurd stance to come out defending big banks who screwed their shareholders with ridiculous levels of risk and then begged the government for bailouts to save them from bankrupcy. Yes, they deserve our sympathy and empathy for they are misunderstood victims of the Obama machine.
I would say that this is true if the concept of them being victims didn't make me want to wretch so badly. Victims my ass.....they're less the victim than the victimizer.
Different Anon...I see your arguement for State Rights in regards to establishing a language that everyone is expected to speak and learn. By having a national language or a state language it reduces cost and standardize all forms issued by government. And declaring a national langauge does not undermine the melting pot as all cultures are being melted into the American culture thus English.
ReplyDeleteNow as for school. You are correct that I am not a trainded educator academically but I do educate my own children as additional to them going to public schools.
As I said, all of the articles written on this topic have not discussed complaints, tension or illuminated any history of race issues at the school. If tensions were running high that is all more the reason to discuss the topic. By discussing the topic and not ignoring it, as is typically the case, the school adminstrator would defuse any poetential safety issues.
I am bashing the poor nor did I tell gays to stop fighting for their rights. I have offered a solution to both situations that are not main stream and would suffice all. But they are rebuffed because Americans have become co-dependent and lazy.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the top 1% Americans making up 60% of all income is not class warfare in itself. It is not an issue of fairness but our Capitalist system does allow for one in either class to change their lot in life.
The bankers with Goldman and Morgan Stanley worked within the market set by the regulations that our elected officials made worse by repealing Glass-Steagall and pushing the notion that everyone has the right to own a home by telling mortgage companies not to worry about repayment of loans because Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will purchase them. TARP, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are all programs that create a safety net for risky behavior.
Our economy and banking system would not have spiralled out of control as many stumped. Companies need to be allowed to follow the bankruptcy path without intervention by the government. The trouble is that, as in the auto industry, the unions have politicians in power doing all they can to maintain their pension funds.
I don't defend the risky behavior taken by few rather I defend Wall Street in general. Had regulators been paying attention and politicians acted properly in the legislation passed and enacted we would not be talking about TARP, Housing bubble, derivitives and a recession.
"The bankers with Goldman and Morgan Stanley worked within the market set by the regulations..."
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case, then why Goldman Sachs facing SEC civil actions as well as potential criminal actions against them for gaming the system?
"Had regulators been paying attention..."
Hold the phone Chris. You can't be pro-free markets with one hand and then blame the regulators for failing to regulate the system with the other. The Republicans have spent 30+ years slowly stripping the financial industry of it's regulatory controls (democrats helped too).
This is an area where I stray heavily from my libertarian roots, for good reason.
It's gambling and the individuals risk involved rarely corresponds to anything tangible because it's "funny money". If I make a wager with monopoly money, will it seem real to me? Does it seem real when you're betting with 1's and 0's in a computer? I can tell you from experience it doesn't. So there's less perceived risk which means higher risk taking. This requires heavy regulation to prevent abuse and excess risk.
I think you're being naive in thinking that wall street has anything intentions in mind other than their next bonus check. If they thought they could game the system and make a billion dollars shorting some derivative relating to the downfall of society, guaranteed they'd make that wager.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteThe civil suit is weak at best. If there was something seriously done wrong by Goldman Sachs a criminal suit would have been set forth. You don't find it interesting that the SEC suit comes out on the heels of harsh words from President Obama and the start of Dodd's reform plan?
All I am saying in regards to regulators is that they are in place now and they failed. I can be pro-free market and blame the regulators for their failure. The "funny money" you speak of is direct creativity from political policies with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. A market was created to deal in toxic assests much like a market was established decades ago for junk bonds.
I have no problem with some regulation on our financial markets to ensure the products being traded and the deals being done are investment grade and above board. There is a reason why people like Warren Buffet must alert the SEC or NYSE that they are making a new position or selling their current position as their move will effect the landscape of the investment.
If the Board of Directors and Shareholders are informed and use their vote accordingly they can influence how those demonized bonus checks are doled out. Nevermind that a bonus is taxed at a higher rate than normal pay thus giving government more money. At the end of the day, the derivitives were a creation to deal with toxic assets encouraged by the practices of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - another failed government entitlement program.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteCivil suits are easier to bring because they have a lower evidentiary standard. The criminal investigation is ongoing and from what I've read, entirely likely to bring charges. So whoever is telling you this case is weak is probably wrong.
And while there's probably some politics in the filing of the case, who cares. What I care about is whether or not Goldman Sachs actually committed this crime. I have enough information to suspect they did.
The regulators failed because they were poorly staffed and underfunded. This fact was directly attributable to the consistent budget reductions that this departmnet saw for 8 years under Bush. (in his defense, clinton didn't do any better)
When you're monitoring 1-3 billion transactions a year valued at 15-25 trillion dollars, you need considerable staff that is highly competent. You don't get that at bargain basement prices. But that was the specific intent of gutting the budget. Don't think that wall street lobbyists didn't have something to do with those cuts.
"At the end of the day, the derivitives were a creation to deal with toxic assets encouraged by the practices of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - another failed government entitlement program."
Huh? What was occuring at Fannie/Freddie was normal business because derivatives are normal business.
The problem was that de-regulation of the housing industry, pushed for BY the banking/housing industry, forced banks to make loans to people that weren't qualified. This cascaded into Fannie/Freddie because they bought these loans under the impression that they were viable assets (they didn't do the underwriting). They then packaged these assets into securitized bonds and sold them to investors as Grade AAA securities.
The problems that occurred at Goldman/Morgan was that they saw the credit issues within these loans as they packaged them for securitization (they were paid to assess them for the banks) and they then went out and bet against their customers (the other banks and buyers) by selling naked derivatives that had no assets backing them. These naked derivatives were betting against the housing securitization bonds that Goldman/Morgan packaged. In essense, they were shorting their customers stock stock without disclosing it and without actually holding any of the asset they were shorting.
This is unconscionable behavior because it allows the middle man (goldman) who has information the others don't necessarily have to play both sides against each other for their own profit. That is a moral hazzard that cannot be allowed to exist.
And since regulators don't regulate the derivative markets because their mandate doesn't allow for it, there was nothing that could have been done at the time to stop it.
However, it is highly likely that these fraud cases will be more and more common moving forward as the pieces unravel. Remember, it took 5 years for Enron to come to trial. That's because of the complexity of the financial transactions.
Unraveling this mess will take years but I fully expect criminal charges.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that it will take time to unravel it all and perhaps more charges will follow. The trouble I have is that what was being done is not indicative of Wall Street or all financial organizations.
Having a high morale and ethical standard is necessary for those working in business but, unfortunately, a few lack that backbone or realize the potential underhandedness that may exist.
Viper, excluding coincidence, why do you think five male students chose to wear clothing with the American flag on it on Cinco de Mayo?
ReplyDeleteClark
ReplyDeleteIt does not matter why the five males wore shirts with an American Flag on it for Cinco de Mayo. Cinco de Mayo is not an American holiday; yet I do recognize that Mexicans in our country, legally or illegally, have the opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate their holiday - even if those in Mexico no longer make a big deal about it.
One thing I find interesting is that one of the five students is half white and half Latino (Mexican). We lose as a society when we allow foreign holidays to trump our right to display the American Flag.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/bs_nm/us_banks_probe
ReplyDeleteJust a few with low ethics and morals, huh? Understand that these deals are not brokered by 2 men in a back room under darkness. They are brokered and reviewed by dozens of entities within these organizations. For them to have been fraudulent implies that, as a whole, the moral compass of these companies was not pointing north.
And yet republicans still want them to go relatively un-regulated. It's shocking. Again, I diverge from my free market, libertarian roots here, but such a moral hazzard cannot be allowed to exist in a society any more than a cancer can be allowed to exist in a human.
Viper, you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask whether you thought it mattered why the five males wore the clothing with the American flag on it. I asked why you think they chose to wear that specific clothing on that day. You're not shy about giving your opinion, so please do so here. Why wear clothing with American flags on it on Cinco de Mayo?
ReplyDeleteI'll give you a hint (from my perspective): to cause controversy.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteAs you said time will ferret out how deep the use deception went. I still contend that SEC should have done a better job. I do agree with you that some level of regulation is required and moral hazzard needs to be accounted for in the brokerage industry. This is a prime reason I took the opportunity I did with my current employer - they have a high integrity and moral standard when it comes to investing.
Clark
One of the five males, according to his mother, wears clothing with the American flag numerous times a week. Was there a sense of Patriotism going on, perhaps. Did the kids want to stand up for America, perhaps. Regardless, in all the reporting that I have read, not one of these kids flaunted, taunted or drew additional attention to the American Flag. So where is the controversy? This is America still, right?
Viper, this is still America. Even in the absence of any reports of these kids flaunting, taunting or drawing attention to their attire, it strains credulity to think that there was not even a modicum of intent among these students to create controversy. I'm simply suggesting that these students are being a bit disingenuous when they claim to be wholly surprised by the fact that they were approached by administrators.
ReplyDeleteClark
ReplyDeleteI agree that the students had to expect some flack for wearing the American Flag but to get harrassed by school administrators is a different topic altogether. School administrators cowtailed to special interest. The question did the school remove the American Flag from the pole on that day? Would it be okay for the American Flag to be removed for that day?
If so, then why not remove it for Boxing Day too?
I should say Viper, I don't necessarily agree with the administrators decision to send the students home. But for you to suggest that the students were "harrassed by school administrators" is a bit of an overstatement. It seems like you have a pretty low bar for what constitutes harassment. Even more unbelievable is your assertion that "administrators [kow towed] to special interests. What special interest forced their hand? Did the administrator call up his favorite special interest and ask what to do? I don't think it was a split second decision, but to suggest that there was some sort of outside influence that impacted the decision is a bit off the mark to say the least.
ReplyDeleteObviously it was not a split second decision as the students were not approached until lunch. We know that school administrators look to avoid any sense of minority harassment. The harassment is real here as once the student refused to remove their shirts and then were told they had to go home. What about their right to learn? Where was the evidence of definite uproar or a clash?
ReplyDeleteHow do "we know that school administrators look to avoid any sense of minority harassment"? I'd be willing to agree with the statement if the word "minority" were dropped from it.
ReplyDeleteI still don't understand how these 5 students were harassed by the administrator. You seem to suggest that the mere fact that they were approached by the administrator constitutes harassment. Even taking it further to address the fact that the students were given, in essence, an ultimatum (remove the clothing or go home) does not for me have any indication of harassment. As stated above, you seem to have a pretty low threshhold for what constitutes harassment.
And as for their right to learn? They had and continue to have that right. They chose to not exercise it by going home.
Who ever said there had to be "evidence of definite uproar or a clash" in order for an administrator to take some sort of action? To me, that standard is a bit high and would lead to situations bring too far gone until one could take action. It's a judgement call. We have the benefit of hindsight. One thing that I am at least willing to admit is that it's virtually impossible for either you or I to fully appreciate the unique situation that this administrator faced that day.
Clark
ReplyDeleteThey here told to leave school grounds. Imagine if they had refused. I wish they would have. They did not exercise any right not to learn. Answer me this: Why was the American Flag allowed to fly that day at the school? If the mere sight of the American Flag was offensive and could lead to violence or disruption, why allow the American Flag to fly?
The flag was allowed to fly that day at the school because it presumably
ReplyDeleteis flown every day that the school is in session and perhaps even every single day. I don't know that anyone, other than you, has said that the mere sight of the American flag was offensive and could lead to violence. I see what you're getting at and will dare to say that these five students wouldn't have gotten in trouble if they wore American flag apparel every day or every Wednesday or the 5th day of every month, etc. As you said above, "the students had to expect some flack".
I love being able to find amazing prices on Old Navy clothing online here.
ReplyDelete